Video: Congresswoman omits “under God” on House floor while leading Pledge of Allegiance

posted at 1:15 pm on October 25, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Aaaaaand it’s not just any Congresswoman, but Minnesota’s own Betty McCollum, who’s defending the seat against a strong challenge from Republican Teresa Collett in the 4th CD this year. Normally, I’d let this slide, but in this case McCollum wanted to lead the chamber in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. If she objects to the “under God” portion of the pledge, then why volunteer for the job? But this is from quite a while ago as well:

This took place on April 17, 2002, according to C-SPAN’s archives, which makes it fair game but not as trenchant as if it had occurred in this session of Congress. A voter in McCollum’s district dug up the incident, thanks again to C-SPAN’s searchable library. I’m not sure I’ve heard of this being an issue in McCollum’s earlier races, but then again, she hasn’t found herself in a competitive race in any of her re-election campaigns. The closest race she had was a 58-33 squeaker over Patrice Bataglia in 2004.

It’s up on the front page of Fox Nation today, so obviously some people think this is a big deal. Do you agree? Take the poll:

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

With all the garbage they dig up about high school and college pranks…here is a liberal in a position of power.
Fair game, and she should be reamed for this…
Still keep on point with unemployment and lousy economy…but throw this in as Un-American, and atheistic…

Eh, i’d say it was no big deal if not for the fact that she was the one who wanted to say it, so she clearly intended to offend people and/or make a statement. So hey, right back at’cha Betty, enjoy your return to the private sector.

I think there’s no getting around the fact that she’s making a statement by specifically closing her mouth as others recited those words. It will be interesting to see whether her constituents agree or disagree with that statement (and how strongly).

One’s views on God should be secondary – at least there should not be a God litmus test for public office.

But in this real world, politicians lay down markers all the time that give us insight into their true nature, character, and ideology.

Betty McCollum finds the notion of pledging that we are “One nation, under God” offensive, and this gives us an insight into who she is, and what she believes. This is useful to the people in her district.

If they want to elect a Godless pig who would choose to use the Pledge of Allegiance to this country as a moment to make an anti-God, secular-humanist statement, by all means, have at it.

It also helps the rest of us know the nature, character, and ideology of the 4th District of MN.

Big Deal.
It is also a big deal when Obama leaves the Creator out. I don’t care if she doesn’t believe there is a God, or god and Obama……..well I’m about as sick of him as I can get. But there is obviously a far left movement to abolish anything that could be conceived of as more powerful than them.
People need to know what kind of insanity they are voting for.

I’m a non-believer myself, but this kind of thing (like leaving the “creator” part out of the Declaration) really irritates me. That the contemporary left feels perfectly comfortable editing some of our most historic and significant national language tells you pretty much everything you need to know. So in that sense, it is a big deal.

I voted for “it’s offensive” but that still doesn’t accurately describe it to me. I see it as stealth/subversive activism by a leftard progressive, which I’d describe as “dangerous”. I’m not “offended” when someone refuses to say “under God”, but I am on alert that that person has a wider agenda which threatens our institutions/traditions/culture – kinda like how Obama promised to remake America’s foundations and rewrite history and all that.

HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, soon after I
delivered my remarks on the House floor this
morning, I received numerous calls from news
organizations. Unfortunately, these calls were
not about the importance of the Clean Air Act,
which was the subject of my one-minute
speech. Instead, the press was more concerned
about a pause I took during the Pledge
of Allegiance—as I was trying to determine if
I had my back to the American flag—than
what I said about protecting our environment.
I would hope the media pays closer attention
to the issues affecting our air quality so that
the people of this Nation, under God, will be
able to one day live in an environment free
from pollution.

Yeah… that big flag you were looking right at might have been behind you.

Democrat Michael Dukakis became suddenly and instantly unelectable as President in 1988 when everyone was reminded that, as Govermor of Massachestts, he vetoed a bill requiring public schoolchildren to recite the pledge.

To rub Dukakis’ nose in it, Pappy Bush led the Republican Convention in the Pledge of Allegience as the final part of his acceptance speech in New Orleans.

It’s a dumb thing to hate someone over, and it’s also a dumb thing to make that big a deal over.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

No, it’s not dumb to make a big deal over it. This is the classic democrat of today. This is the epitome of what they stand for … nothing. They hate God, they hate this country and they hate anyone who stands in their way.

They are the antithesis of our founding principles and everytime a light can be shone on who they are the better.

I voted for “it’s offensive” but that still doesn’t accurately describe it to me. I see it as stealth/subversive activism by a leftard progressive, which

I’d describe as “dangerous”. I’m not “offended” when someone refuses to say “under God”, but I am on alert that that person has a wider agenda which threatens our institutions/traditions/culture – kinda like how Obama promised to remake America’s foundations and rewrite history and all that.

Does her voting public know that she isn’t a Christian or that she doesn’t believe in God? If they don’t then I think it’s very important from that perspective and they deserve to know so they can decide if it’s important to them or not. Of course that’s is in addition to the obvious reason that if your not going to say it the way it was written then don’t do it at all.

Omitting “under God” or “In God we Trust” or even lowercasing the ‘g’ in God does nothing to change the fact that God governs in the affairs of men. Those that engage in this type of stuff do so at their own peril. The fact is that God raises up nations and he lays them down. I believe that acknowledging God in our pledge is important insofar as that our system of laws and governance are subtended under His laws and nothing we can do or say will change that. We will, however, reap God’s wrath for failing to acknowledge and follow it. There are several cases in history where that is shown. It is far better for us to choose to acknowledge God and ask to live under His blessings than to deny that we do. thanks for posting–red meat indeed.

Socialists/Marxists and yes atheists won’t admit it, but they worship only Satan. Why? Because they use God, and Christianity as their whipping post, but never a peep out of them bashing, or denying Satan….NEVER!

And what office are you running for? Oh yeah, none…
Try to win an election with that attitude…these aren’t “friends” that she is responsible for.
Mainly people hate people like this because they fully understand that they have no respect…even a respectful atheist would say the words.

I wouldn’t call it “offensive” but rather revealing. Leftists worship the State, plain and simple. And they’ll make you worship it too. That’s their goal: a command and control society. Good intentions are irrelevant. Statist laws and acts need to be judged by their results, not their intentions.

It’s pretty easy to leave phrases out saying the pledge of allegiance… now if you have her doing it on more than one occasion it might be something worth bringing up…

ninjapirate on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

It was deliberate. Watch it again, and watch her expression and the way she purses her lips during that phrase. This is a common thing among uber-libs. That’s why Obama skips over the words so consistently.

I don’t care if she is atheist… she should at least respect the belief of others. Liberals are deeply contemptuous of believers. Even liberals who adopt faith as a fashion can barely restrain condescension towards real believers.

In Hebrew there were no upper or lower case…so when someone doesn’t capitalize, no big deal.
Just like some bibles capitalize pronouns referring to God.
Like Son of God, or son of God.
Regardless, when someone doesn’t capitalize, then I know they are thinking of God…resistance is futile…

The thing is, in this video she is showing her true colors, since she isn’t under the pressure of an election. What she may say now doesn’t matter. If she were to say the pledge today and include “under God” it wouldn’t convince me. These people have no difficulty lying to gain an advantage. What they say and do when there is no danger to their job is where their hearts and values really lie.

…on the other hand, I do find this “power of prayer” business in a political context “offensive”. Why? Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama, and others could make the same claim when they push their Marxist liberation theology, which basically asserts that Christianity is all about collective salvation and redistributing wealth.

It’s fine to say that one is inspired/guided/given strength by God, but for COD to claim that God answered her prayers, and will garner her more votes, implies that her prayers took precedent over the prayers of someone else (like those people who might be praying for Chris Coombs victory!) which leaves the door wide open to legitimate criticism.

Well it’s revealing that she is a militant secularist. Probably an atheist but not willing to admit it. People like this are very dangerous, but they are preferred over people who are atheist their whole life but join a Marxist racist church just to advance their carreers as community organizers.

There’s a problem with some people not having enough respect for others simply because they believe something different.

If she didn’t want to say the pledge then don’t volunteer to do exactly that!

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Exactly, it isn’t the “words” is the lack of respect…
Standing in front of congress and purposely misstating the pledge is the same as standing in the pulpit and misstating the bible on purpose…try that with your wedding vows…

Well it’s revealing that she is a militant secularist. Probably an atheist but not willing to admit it. People like this are very dangerous, but they are preferred over people who are atheist their whole life but join a Marxist racist church just to advance their carreers as community organizers.

Ted Torgerson on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Toss “militant” as an adjective before most anything and it sounds pretty bad–whether a militant secularist or militant evangelical.

If she objects to the “under God” portion of the pledge, then why volunteer for the job?

Right, only theists should be able to lead a pledge of loyalty to their country. You’ve just put your finger exactly on the reason why “under God” is so problematic, I don’t know how you don’t see it there in front of you.

There is a great principle at the heart of the movement to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance – and from our national customs, our currency, and our public ceremonies. It has very little to do with atheism. It has a great deal to do with authoritarianism.

….

This concept is the foundation of American liberty. And because it defines limits to the powers of government, it is supremely offensive to the radicals of the left. They abhor the words “under God” because these words stand in the way of an all-powerful state.

…

If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man – or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government.

Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The case now before the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.

The point is that it’s the traditional version. Is it really a big deal?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, it’s the general lack of respect that the democrats show when in office.
Does it matter that the president doesn’t know how to properly salute? No, except is show a lack of respect.
Does it matter that people interrupt other people when talking, not really, it just shows lack of respect.
If you don’t value respect, then this is no big deal.
To you it’s no big deal…to me, respect shows responsibility, discipline, honor for your fellow man, anyway that is what I taught my kids…you have a different opinion.